Brain Scans Point to Homosexuality as Being Genetic

Evolution works by random mutations happening and the ones who have helpful mutations being more likely to survive than those with unhelpful mutations or crippling mutations.

Evolution works by random mutations happening and the ones who have helpful mutations being more likely to survive than those with unhelpful mutations or crippling mutations. Humans are better equipped to survive in this world than frogs, so why are there still frogs? Because the world is large and complex and has enough room in it for organisms other than the most highly evolved to survive.

Evolution doesn't really have any "purpose". It has results but its not exactly an uncomplicated force and there are obvious reasons why those with blue eyes continued to survive along with those that are brown eyes. The difference isn't that large.

Hmmm... could you link me to the evidence that has proven evolution. I'd like to be the first to cash in on it, because as far as I know, evolution is still just a "theory."

Evolution, or, rather, the clusterfuck process by which genes get mixed around through the generations, whose step-by-step rudiments we grasp and about whose long-term appearance we have a great many clues, does, usually, serve the purpose of survival.

"Usually," because it just doesn't work out for some species...


It may seem an overly-subtle shift between "evolution's purpose is survival" and "evolution serves the purpose of survival," but there is an interesting difference in their shadows.

They suggest different answers to the question, "what has the purpose?" The former seems to say that evolution has a purpose, and that purpose is survival. With the later, evolution fulfills a purpose, the purpose of a species to survive. In this case the species has a purpose, but the process of evolution does not.

The former, I think, is far more fun and interesting, and more apt to prompt speculation among people.

The later, which is far more catious in attributing purpose, is more fitting to the strict skeleton of scientific theories (which may not even want to say that species have a purpose, prefering to say only that some survive and some do not). The Method wants its theories to be as detatched and doubt-drenched as possible. In this stance any question about "evolutionary purpose" is inherently problematic, and it may well see the former stance to be a result of a certain tendency of humans to project human attributes (like intent) onto things that they are trying to understand.

The later view reminds us that speculation rooted in attention to purpose is suspect, and that isn't exactly a bad thing to keep in mind. But really? Fuck it. It's sure easy to see evolution as purposeful, it makes sense in a way, so roll with it and let the speculations fly. We can't exactly test them anyway - the shit takes too damn long - so let's pile 'em up and see what makes sense together.

Here's mine: insofar as homosexuality is genetic, it is not reproductively advantageous and so natrual selecion will work against it. It is rarely expressed, however, and doesn't always prevent reproduction when it is expressed, especially among humans, who are well able to act against their instincts and most of whom live in cultures that give one a great deal of incentive to stay in the closet and make with the kids. This means that natural selection doesn't have much of a grip on it; when it's there, it is usually not expressed, and even then it doesn't always have an impact on reproductivity. So, on it goes, possibly forever.

Its evolutionary purpose? None that I see. It's just not working against evloution's purpose strongly enough to get smacked down by natural selection.

So is the electrical theory behind how your computer is running right now. Most of what you accept in science is theory. In order for something to make it to the status of theory in science it has to be very successful. Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful ones around.

No... it's not. Little do you know I have a BS degree in Electrical Engineering, and I can assure you, there is no theory involved with electricity that can't be proven.

So is the electrical theory behind how your computer is running right now. Most of what you accept in science is theory. In order for something to make it to the status of theory in science it has to be very successful. Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful ones around.

That's nonsense. So you've observed the little electrons moving around? No. no one has.

And I have a B.S. in molecular biology and chemistry, graduate school in biochemistry, and years of biomedical research, part of that time in an evolutionary biology lab. I also work with mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineers on a daily basis. So I'm not impressed.

A theory is something that has been empirically tested many, many times and obeys the predicted result every time.

I wouldn't even qualify evolution as a theory, since it's nearly impossible to control and test all the parameters one would need to test to substantiate it as a theory. It's more like a consensus hypothesis at this point.

The movement of electrons may not be able to be seen, but, they can be measured, thus proving the movement.

No, it proves you are measuring SOMETHING. The theory is that it is the movement of electrons. And it's a damn good theory. But in the end, that's what it is until someone observes the movement of the electrons themselves (not likely to happen any time soon).

As for evolution, I never said it wasn't a theory. In fact, I think I was clear that it IS a theory. Maybe being an electrician doesn't help reading comprehension, eh?

I'll have to say that I would trust the theory of electricty rather than trust the theory of evolution...

I would certainly hope so.

Though if you ever have occasion to use some of the newer drugs that are being produced - so-called biologics, for example - then there's a good chance you're using something developed heavily on principles of evolution (mutation, selection, and the like).

I'm not debating the theory of evolution by arguing it's existence. Do I think we came from bacteria in a pond? So far, no. It's all theory based on small observances in human and animal traits and characteristics that have changed over time. Electricity is definately more of a constant practiced science than evolution is. Sure, you have biomeds and small other observances in evolution..but it's still (in large part) just theory to suggest we derived from bacteria or monkeys.